Diligent wrote:One can oppose both with equal candor. One should oppose both. The Huffington Post article and the supporters railing against the female vote are examples of extremists whose opinions are equally deplorable.

And yet, we do not see that.

One idea should not be laughed off or hand-waved away simply because it comes from a minority or person with less power; all racist, sexist, and bigoted ideas - no matter how unlikely - can germinate over time and metastasize into actual oppression and violence.

Sure, as long as we also recognise that it is far more likely that groups that have previously been disenfrachised will lose the right to vote, as compared to the likelihood that white men will lose the vote.

---------------

B0ycey wrote:The irony with the posts in this thread and the OP is that people want to discriminate white male voting privileges in order to balance equality with other races. But it clearly hasn't occured to them that by having this viewpoint of discriminating against someone for 'just being a white male' it is just as racist/sexist as any other discrimination with race or sex we have today. Everyone has the right to vote no matter your race, sex or religion. And if we can agree on this minor point, be might actually finally progress in society rather than argue amongst ourselves. Let's not return to us vs them thank you and leave the pasts slavery injustices to the past... where it fucking belongs!

I am not sure that proposing that white men lose the vote is just as discriminatory as proposing that women or people of colour lose the vote.

The former is a new and unpopular idea, while the latter is a historical fact that was made unpopular fairly recently.

Also, the former does not perpetuate a tradition of discrimination, while the latter does.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not sure that proposing that white men lose the vote is just as discriminatory as proposing that women or people of colour lose the vote.

How do you reach that conclusion? Both are examples of racism of colour of skin and sex. The only difference is historical. But that is no excuse to be racist today. If you support white man losing the right to vote today, in my eyes you are just as racist as the white men who were against black and women voting a hundred years ago.

The former is a new and unpopular idea, while the latter is a historical fact that was made unpopular fairly recently.

Also, the former does not perpetuate a tradition of discrimination, while the latter does.

It does annoy me when people want to punish 'white people' for historic injustices. Unless a 'white male' today is activity in a slave trade of some sort they should not be tainted by the actions of someone who happens to share their race and sex a hundred years ago. With a view like this you are no different than people with their anti Muslim rhetoric on here. The irony PoD is I used to respect your posts on fairness of cred and sex. Now I see you are just as racist as the bigots on here. But you consider your racism justified because it's ok to punish white males for actions of their ancestors. How about treating people as an individual and judging them on their actions alone? Doesn't that seem more fair? It's sure what people of race and sex fight for.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure, as long as we also recognise that it is far more likely that groups that have previously been disenfrachised will lose the right to vote, as compared to the likelihood that white men will lose the vote.

I think the difference here is that we have a small fringe group wanting to repeal the 19th Amendment via Twitter hashtags, while the article proposing racism against whites was tacitly approved by several of the editors at the Huffington Post. In this instance, with the Huffington Post ranked 7th among news websites for daily traffic according to Alexa, I would say such an editorial had a potentially more far-reaching effect than the Trump supporters. It would be nearly akin to the same type of editorial appearing on the Washington Post or BBC (the Huffington Post is ranked just after those two). One can claim a particular hashtag has expansive reach on Twitter, but any blockhead has a voice there - and likely not as much credibility as someone posting similar unfortunate views on a news blog.

* Update: In the Daily Maverick on Tuesday Ivo Vegter states that "As early as Friday, Ramon Cabanac of the Renegade Report, a podcast in the CliffCentral stable, confided in me that 'Shelley [Garland] is a figment of my very white friend’s imagination. … We are trolling Huffy Post by writing outrageous articles. We’ll expose them soon.'"* Update 2: Ivo Vegter has added the following clarification to his article on the paragraph above: "After publication, Roman Cabanac sent me the following message: "My original message about 'we are trolling the Huffington Post' was made in error. My friend wrote the piece and unilaterally sent it without my knowledge. After I found out, we thought of doing more but the story got out of hand."http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-a ... eputations

The Renegade Report's Ramon Cabanac confirmed that his white male friend is the author of the article, who trolled the Huffington Post by writing the outrageous article. I assume that the podcast is a popular right-wing talk show. Probably this is the funniest race joke ever in South Africa.

Political correctness is becoming pervasive in our society and in our daily discourse. One simply cannot have balanced, nuanced debates about subjects like; race, gender, and every topical subject in between without them being protected by non-existent and anti-liberal ‘safe spaces’.

The Renegade Report is a show where we will speak freely and discuss issues openly. Topics will be dissected through the lenses of economics, philosophy, history and sociology. There will be no sacred cows. It’s an antidote to the cultural censorious norm that debate has descended into.

Well known for his acerbic Twitter antics, Jonathan Witt is a doctor who has become progressively more cynical and annoyed with society. Jonathan is never afraid to express his opinion on matters even and most especially when they may not be the popular view.

Roman Cabanac is a fierce advocate of individualism and anarchism. He’s made a name for himself as a ‘vicious Twitter troll’ and describes himself as only being interested in good arguments, with scant regard for experiences, moral relativism or faulty logic. Feelings have little to no bearing in his discourse.

Ideological Imperatives Trump Editorial Integrity

On Thursday, the 13th of April 2017, the Huffington Post South Africa published a piece by Shelley Garland, a Master’s student in philosophy. Ms Garland argued that the suffrage needs to be removed, claiming that votes of white men have created the “biggest blows to the progressive cause”. White men have apparently been responsible for Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and the ANC losing four key metros in the municipal elections of 2016. Various other obviously spurious claims about land ownership, capitalism, and the fallacious Oxfam wealth report were made without references or the requisite evidence. They were treated as truth without interrogation. Ms Garland concluded her piece with the solution to the problem: remove the franchise from white men to wrestle away their supposed control of the world from them.

Reaction to the piece was swift and brutal. As of Saturday evening, the piece has had over 55 000 shares on Facebook. Sipho Hlongwane, the Blogs Editor at Huffington Post SA, even boasted about the amount of traffic the blog had received:

The blog was mentioned on the Washington Free Beacon, the Libertarian Republic and Fox News. It was the gold standard of virality, a triumph of the click-bait phenomenon, and likely a resounding commercial success for the Huffington Post.

Once the piece went viral HuffPostSA editor, Ms Verashni Pillay, penned a response vigorously defending the publishing thereof. She lamented the “patriarchal systems” which have allowed white men to wield power and further blamed readers for not understanding the “pretty standard feminist theory” that Shelley was peddling. The defence was subsequently deleted.

After the crowing and the ad revenue, the response suddenly changed tone. No explanation was given for the more subdued, edited defence of the blog.

On Saturday evening, there was a dramatic u-turn when the blog was suddenly taken down and replaced by a shallow apology. Ms Pillay offered a half-hearted mea culpa with a promise to bolster future blog contributions. She further announced that the matter will be relayed to the Press Ombudsman for review. The reason given for taking the blog down was that the Huffington Post could not verify the identity of “Shelley Garland”, and not because of its reprehensible content.

It appears that Shelley Garland does not exist. A Facebook search reveals very little. One would assume a MA student in philosophy would have some of her work in the public domain. A reverse image search of her picture only finds hits on topics related to her blog. She is an apparition.

However, “Shelley Garland” reached out to us, and sent us her original email to Huffington Post as well as their response (We have deleted the name of the intern who responded to “Shelley” as that is not of material importance).

“Shelley” did receive the Huff Po FAQ, which explicitly states that statistics or facts should have a link as evidence for that assertion. The fact that the piece did not adhere to the HuffPo’s own guidelines did not hamper the publishing thereof.

Moreover, “Shelley” also received Huffington Post’s Terms of Use and User Agreement which contained the following paragraph:

It is abundantly clear that Huffington Post’s own terms were not met. The piece was objectionable, racist, and inflammatory, yet somehow it was still published. There was a fundamental double standard between upholding the very standards that the Huffington Post ascribes to their contributors and the behaviour of their editorial team.

Furthermore news organisations have had ample warning to the risk of false opinion pieces, most notably thanks to the parody Twitter account of @GodfreyElfwick who, last year, baited The Guardian into publishing an article which laughably claimed that prominent atheist and scientist Sam Harris is a human gateway drug to bigotry.

The crux of the matter is that this massive error highlights the all too common issue of ideological narrative trumping any editorial integrity. The Huffington Post chased the ideological position and lost sight of the integrity and standards that are bestowed upon them as journalists at a public media company. The facts simply did not matter. The opinion piece conformed to their ideology and that ideology defined their position on the matter. Ms Pillay cannot claim ignorance or malice. She defended the piece vehemently and decried criticism as merely emanating from alt-right trolls. There was no further interrogation until 24 hours later when the piece was finally retracted following public pressure. The fact that she did not research the author or the claims of the author beggars belief. It is the prime example of a journalistic ethics failure.

If the piece contained opinion which aligned with a narrative but was discordant with reality, it would be assumed that an interrogation of facts would precede the publication thereof, not post-facto as in this instance. Systemic bias in media was a defining feature of 2016. The only people who, it seems, cannot see that bias are journalists themselves. The narrative must never precede the facts.

So, how to combat the scourge of fake news? The answer lies with the Huffington Post itself.

South Africa deserves better journalism, as does the rest of the world.

~ Roman Cabanac & Jonathan Witt – The Renegade Report podcast

“Shelley Garland” emailed his/her response to us as well. The name “Nick Fannow” appears to be a pseudonym.

B0ycey wrote:How do you reach that conclusion? Both are examples of racism of colour of skin and sex. The only difference is historical. But that is no excuse to be racist today. If you support white man losing the right to vote today, in my eyes you are just as racist as the white men who were against black and women voting a hundred years ago.

Because disenfranchisement of white men is a new and unpopular idea, while the disenfranchisement of women and people of colour is a historical fact that was made unpopular fairly recently.

Also, the former does not perpetuate a tradition of discrimination, while the latter does.

It does annoy me when people want to punish 'white people' for historic injustices. Unless a 'white male' today is activity in a slave trade of some sort they should not be tainted by the actions of someone who happens to share their race and sex a hundred years ago. With a view like this you are no different than people with their anti Muslim rhetoric on here. The irony PoD is I used to respect your posts on fairness of cred and sex. Now I see you are just as racist as the bigots on here. But you consider your racism justified because it's ok to punish white males for actions of their ancestors. How about treating people as an individual and judging them on their actions alone? Doesn't that seem more fair? It's sure what people of race and sex fight for.

I have no wish to punish white men or take away their right to vote.

Nor do I think that white people today should be punished for the crimes of their ancestors, or that we should judge our ancestors by modern morality.

I am pointing out that there is a difference between disenfranchisement of white men and disenfranchisement of people who actually have been disenfranchised in the past, and that this difference is historical in nature. This is true regardless of what we think is justified.

---------

Diligent wrote:I think the difference here is that we have a small fringe group wanting to repeal the 19th Amendment via Twitter hashtags, while the article proposing racism against whites was tacitly approved by several of the editors at the Huffington Post. In this instance, with the Huffington Post ranked 7th among news websites for daily traffic according to Alexa, I would say such an editorial had a potentially more far-reaching effect than the Trump supporters. It would be nearly akin to the same type of editorial appearing on the Washington Post or BBC (the Huffington Post is ranked just after those two). One can claim a particular hashtag has expansive reach on Twitter, but any blockhead has a voice there - and likely not as much credibility as someone posting similar unfortunate views on a news blog.

True, and that may have more media effect.

But this does not seem nearly as significant as the overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of power white men wield in society. More people may read this article, or editorial to be more correct, but the chance of it having an impact with the powers that be is far less than Trump's supporters.

@Pants-of-dog Expanding the franchise is progressive. When the vote was extended from aristocrats to middle class males that was progressive, when it was extended to working class males that was progressive, when it was extended to women over the age of 30 (35?) that was progressive. To criticise those who won the franchise for failing to take a mile, i.e instituting universal suffrage immediately, when the authorities gave an inch is ridiculous and petty. 18 year old Americans didn't even earn the right to vote until they were dying in their thousands in Vietnam. Should that stoke animosity between different generations?

The idea that bigotry is wrong but bigotry against Pants' chosen people is wronger is also ridiculous and petty. Especially when we're all being oppressed by the few dozen families that control 90% of the money and use it to buy the politicians and media.

Whilst I'm here I'm curious to hear your opinion on the treatment of whites in Zimbabwe. Is it acceptable for Mugabe to shit all over them due to their historical baggage?

That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

AFAIK wrote:@Pants-of-dog Expanding the franchise is progressive. When the vote was extended from aristocrats to middle class males that was progressive, when it was extended to working class males that was progressive, when it was extended to women over the age of 30 (35?) that was progressive. To criticise those who won the franchise for failing to take a mile, i.e instituting universal suffrage immediately, when the authorities gave an inch is ridiculous and petty. 18 year old Americans didn't even earn the right to vote until they were dying in their thousands in Vietnam. Should that stoke animosity between different generations?

Since I am not criticising past governments for not instituting universal suffrage, this criticism is not applicable.

And since I also explicitly mentioned that the sins of one generation should not be passed down to the next, it would be illogical to assume that I think there should be animosity between different generations.

The idea that bigotry is wrong but bigotry against Pants' chosen people is wronger is also ridiculous and petty. Especially when we're all being oppressed by the few dozen families that control 90% of the money and use it to buy the politicians and media.

I did not make any moral arguments. While it is possible for you to infer such a moral argument from my post, the implication was not necessarily there.

In fact, I even pointed out that Trump supporters argued for taking awaynthe rights of women, and the folks who complained here should have also complained when we were discussing that. Perhaps you should tell them they are being ridiculous and petty.

Whilst I'm here I'm curious to hear your opinion on the treatment of whites in Zimbabwe. Is it acceptable for Mugabe to shit all over them due to their historical baggage?

Again, I am not here to discuss the moral acceptance of something. If Mugabe wishes to do this, he would first have to institute radical social reforms to take away the power that these white people have due to colonialism.

Rapperson wrote:That is s troublesome attitude, given that e.g. the Final Solution was arrived at logically by people who were not moral, and also carried out by insufficiently moral people via a certain logic.

But please move on, nothing to see here.

While I agree, this does not change the facts about how arguments are not dependent on the morality of the speaker for veracity.

Pants-of-dog wrote:While I agree, this does not change the facts about how arguments are not dependent on the morality of the speaker for veracity.

That does go to the heart of the matter actually, because your logic (such as it is) is to judge the value of people, or certainly the importance of violations against people, based on the skin color of the victims. This is a racist's logic, and obviously it falls flat as is so often the case with such logic. Someone who holds views such as these is rightly considered a racist, and very likely it can be said that someone who not only holds such views but makes a considerable effort to argue such views as if they are sensible and logical (which obviously they aren't) is a bigot. So you see, your logic and your arguments don't hold any value actually, but they do expose the depths of your moral depravity much more so than if you had just flung your views into the conversation without bothering to argue them.

Rapperson wrote:That does go to the heart of the matter actually, because your logic (such as it is) is to judge the value of people, or certainly the importance of violations against people, based on the skin color of the victims. This is a racist's logic, and obviously it falls flat as is so often the case with such logic. Someone who holds views such as these is rightly considered a racist, and very likely it can be said that someone who not only holds such views but makes a considerable effort to argue such views as if they are sensible and logical (which obviously they aren't) is a bigot. So you see, your logic and your arguments don't hold any value actually, but they do expose the depths of your moral depravity much more so than if you had just flung your views into the conversation without bothering to argue them.

You seem to have misunderstood my argument.

If you think I argued that white men should be disenfranchised because of their skin colour, then you are wrong about what I argued.

I pointed out that there is no serious risk of white men being disenfranchised. I argued this was because white men hold a disproportionately high amount of power in those societies where whites are the majority.

I also pointed out that white men are the only people who have never been disenfranchised because of their gender or skin colour.

I then pointed out that the second fact could explain the first fact.

Now, do you disagree with those facts?

I also laughed at the absurdity of white men actually feeling threatened by this. As to why I laughed, it is because I am aware of the two facts I already mentioned.

If you think I argued that white men should be disenfranchised because of their skin colour, then you are wrong about what I argued.

I pointed out that there is no serious risk of white men being disenfranchised. I argued this was because white men hold a disproportionately high amount of power in those societies where whites are the majority.

I also pointed out that white men are the only people who have never been disenfranchised because of their gender or skin colour.

I then pointed out that the second fact could explain the first fact.

Now, do you disagree with those facts?

I also laughed at the absurdity of white men actually feeling threatened by this. As to why I laughed, it is because I am aware of the two facts I already mentioned.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. Now, you can call me names and insinuate vague accusations, but it would make more sense to address my arguments.

Which of my claims do you disagree with, if any?

Very funny. Last time I challenged your arguments you stonewalled and kept trying to deflect the debate over to something else you claimed to have said. No more. What you typed is there on the thread for all to see, so protest all you want.